Any lying language creates at once in a single stroke a pseudo-reality, contaminating reality, until the Lie is undone. As soon as one lies one becomes separated from reality. One has introduced the falsification oneself. There is one thing no one can force you to do: to lie. One only lies for one's advantage. It is based on an inner decision invisible to the world.

Philip K. Dick, The Exegesis of Philip K. Dick

🛸 Очередной пример голографических технологий.

С такими возможностями ОНИ могут сфальсифицировать очень многое, от, например, ядерных взрывов и до вторжения пришельцев.

*Another example of holographic technologies. With such capabilities, THEY can fake a lot of things, from, for example, nuclear explosions to an alien invasion.

Winding up in the hospital for like half a year with a Warriors arc ongoing then coming back to the fandom sure is wild 😭 Did Squirrelflight actually become Squirrelstar? Did Frostpaw get spayed?? what's going on with these xenophobe cats. help

well you see before all that parsnipflower had opened the dark rift between the worlds, the immense celestial power that was one kept in chains between the border of starclan and the dark forest was unleashed onto the world of the clans giving them each comprehension of all animal knowledge on earth. roachskitter very quickly to harness the dark arts now given onto them, manifesting in them becoming the ultimate dark angel of the clans and reaping justice across all those who have wronged them. book six had bearsnuffle emerge from the celestial storm that had raged on for the arc, bearing the divine power of starclan and the ability to cleave through anything with their new found power. the arc ended with all three trapping the powers within themselves and, to ensure they never release onto the mortal plain again, are locked in a neverending fight within the storms in the sky.

also sorry to hear about the hospital thing!! hope ur doing better now!

It was 1 kg and became 2 kg of meat. Russian food producers are deceiving their customers

“I began to discern the paradox lurking at the heart of Karl Popper's career when, prior to interviewing him in 1992, I asked other philosophers about him. Queries of this kind usually elicit dull, generic praise, but not in Popper’s case. Everyone said this opponent of dogmatism was almost pathologically dogmatic. There was an old joke about Popper: The Open Society and its Enemies should have been titled The Open Society by One of its Enemies.

(…)

I noted that in his writings he seemed to abhor the notion of absolute truths. “No no!” Popper replied, shaking his head. He, like the logical positivists before him, believed that a scientific theory can be “absolutely” true. In fact, he had “no doubt” that some current theories are true (although he refused to say which ones). But he rejected the positivist belief that we can ever know that a theory is true. “We must distinguish between truth, which is objective and absolute, and certainty, which is subjective.”

Popper disagreed with the positivist view that science can be reduced to a formal, logical system or method. A scientific theory is an invention, an act of creation, based more upon a scientist's intuition than upon pre-existing empirical data. “The history of science is everywhere speculative,” Popper said. “It is a marvelous history. It makes you proud to be a human being.” Framing his face in his outstretched hands, Popper intoned, “I believe in the human mind.”

For similar reasons, Popper opposed determinism, which he saw as antithetical to human creativity and freedom. “Determinism means that if you have sufficient knowledge of chemistry and physics, you can predict what Mozart will write tomorrow,” he said. “Now this is a ridiculous hypothesis.” Popper realized long before modern chaos theorists that not only quantum systems but even classical, Newtonian ones are unpredictable. Waving at the lawn outside the window he said, “There is chaos in every grass.”

(…)

Popper abhorred philosophers who argue that scientists adhere to theories for cultural and political rather than rational reasons. Such philosophers resent being viewed as inferior to genuine scientists and are trying to “change their status in the pecking order.” Popper was particularly contemptuous of postmodernists who argued that “knowledge” is just a weapon wielded by people struggling for power. “I don't read them,” Popper said, waving his hand as if at a bad odor. He added, “I once met Foucault.”

I suggested that the postmodernists sought to describe how science is practiced, whereas he, Popper, tried to show how it should be practiced. To my surprise, Popper nodded. “That is a very good statement,” he said. “You can't see what science is without having in your head an idea what science should be.” He admitted that scientists invariably fall short of the ideal he set for them. “Since scientists got subsidies for their work, science isn't exactly what it should be. This is unavoidable. There is a certain corruption, unfortunately. But I don't talk about that.”

Popper then proceeded to talk about it. “Scientists are not as self-critical as they should be,” he asserted. “There is a certain wish that you, people like you”--he jabbed a finger at me—“should bring them before the public.” He stared at me a moment, then reminded me that he had not sought this interview. “Far from it,” he said. Popper then plunged into a technical critique of the big bang theory. “It's always the same,” he summed up. “The difficulties are underrated. It is presented in a spirit as if this all has scientific certainty, but scientific certainty doesn't exist.”

I asked Popper if he felt biologists are also too committed to Darwin's theory of natural selection; in the past he had suggested that the theory is tautological and thus pseudo-scientific. “That was perhaps going too far,” Popper said, waving his hand dismissively. “I'm not dogmatic about my own views.” Suddenly he pounded the table and exclaimed, “One ought to look for alternative theories!”

Popper scoffed at scientists’ hope that they can achieve a final theory of nature. “Many people think that the problems can be solved, many people think the opposite. I think we have gone very far, but we are much further away. I must show you one passage that bears on this.” He shuffled off and returned with his book Conjectures and Refutations. Opening it, he read his own words with reverence: “In our infinite ignorance we are all equal.”

I decided to launch my big question: Is his falsification concept falsifiable? Popper glared at me. Then his expression softened, and he placed his hand on mine. “I don't want to hurt you,” he said gently, “but it is a silly question." Peering searchingly into my eyes, he asked if one of his critics had persuaded me to pose the question. Yes, I lied. “Exactly,” he said, looking pleased.

“The first thing you do in a philosophy seminar when somebody proposes an idea is to say it doesn’t satisfy its own criteria. It is one of the most idiotic criticisms one can imagine!” His falsification concept, he said, is a criterion for distinguishing between empirical and non-empirical modes of knowledge. Falsification itself is “decidably unempirical”; it belongs not to science but to philosophy, or “meta-science,” and it does not even apply to all of science. Popper seemed to be admitting that his critics were right: falsification is a mere guideline, a rule of thumb, sometimes helpful, sometimes not.

Popper said he had never before responded to the question I had just asked. “I found it too stupid to be answered. You see the difference?” he asked, his voice gentle again. I nodded. The question seemed silly to me, too, I said, but I just thought I should ask. He smiled and squeezed my hand, murmuring, “Yes, very good.”

Since Popper seemed so agreeable, I mentioned that one of his former students had accused him of not tolerating criticism of his own ideas. Popper's eyes blazed. “It is completely untrue! I was happy when I got criticism! Of course, not when I would answer the criticism, like I have answered it when you gave it to me, and the person would still go on with it. That is the thing which I found uninteresting and would not tolerate.” In that case, Popper would throw the student out of his class.

(…)

I slipped in a final question: Why in his autobiography did Popper say that he is the happiest philosopher he knows? “Most philosophers are really deeply depressed,” he replied, “because they can’t produce anything worthwhile.” Looking pleased with himself, Popper glanced over at Mrs. Mew, who wore an expression of horror. Popper’s smile faded. “It would be better not to write that,” he said to me. “I have enough enemies, and I better not answer them in this way.” He stewed a moment and added, “But it is so.”

(…)

When Popper died two years later, the Economist hailed him as having been “the best-known and most widely read of living philosophers.” But the obituary noted that Popper’s treatment of induction, the basis of his falsification scheme, had been rejected by later philosophers. “According to his own theories, Popper should have welcomed this fact,” the Economist noted, “but he could not bring himself to do so. The irony is that, here, Popper could not admit he was wrong.”

Can a skeptic avoid self-contradiction? And if he doesn’t, if he arrogantly preaches intellectual humility, does that negate his work? Not at all. Such paradoxes actually corroborate the skeptic’s point, that the quest for truth is endless, twisty and riddled with pitfalls, into which even the greatest thinkers tumble. In our infinite ignorance we are all equal.”

Tight-lipped style

There is a whole series of those spectacular paintings that were painted as grave ornaments in the early 2nd century in Egypt (then under Roman Empire occupation). They are amazing since they depict how regular people of that era looked and give us an idea of how people of the New Testament looked like — Fayum is in Egypt but still within a broad range of the Middle East/eastern Mediterranean area. And there are no blue eyes nor blond hair there, the way Jesus and the apostles were painted by artists who depicted biblical scenes through the ages — funny that…

What is common to all those paintings is the way the mouths were depicted — closed tight so as to not let any sound out or an unnecessary breath in. It looks like those closely joined lips were a defense against something — anxiety of daily life or anxiety of upcoming death — since they were painted after the subject was already dead. And that grimace is also very common to people living in the current era — tight-lipped is the way to go through life in pretended obliviousness of anxiety and as a defense mechanism for an average person to hide behind the wall of repressions.

That is a mind-boggling blending of normalcy (as expected by society) and neurosis (as the soul yearns to be free to scream). Being tight-lipped can be considered a character trait, but in reality, it is just a lie about the nature of the reality we all live in. It is only a pretense that the person in question is invulnerable to worries and anxieties and presents that face outwardly for the world to see. Showing off the true internal turmoil is frowned upon — and it seems that it was the same millenniums ago. I guess we developed this behavior as an evolutionary trait — don't show too much of yourself, because others will use your perceived weakness to their advantage. It is a mechanism of protection against cruelty that is as common as humankind and the constant fight to take advantage of the weaker.

Simplicity is often attractive, but simple answers are often false.

from Theory and Reality by Peter Godfrey-Smith 

LES RÉALITÉS INNOMMABLES

. . VOUS POUVEZ ENTENDRE CE TEXTE EN CLIQUANT SUR LE LIEN CI-DESSUS . Nous ne pouvons pas nommer ce que nous ne connaissons pas. Nous ne pouvons pas comprendre ce que l’on ne peut nommer et pourtant nous avons besoin de comprendre ce qui reste innommable puisque si on s’arrête seulement là, on ne pourra jamais espérer sortir du labyrinthe infernal dans lequel nous sommes tous pris au…

View On WordPress

EL PELIGRO DE LA FALSIFICACIÓN

I will not stop emphasizing a tiny little fact that these superstitious men are loath to admit: that a thought comes when “it” wants, and not when “I” want. It is, therefore, a falsification of the facts to say that the subject “I” is the condition of the predicate “think.”

Beyond Good and Evil, Friedrich Nietzsche

A grandiose falsification

In the Russian Federation, the so-called single voting day (September 08-10, 2023), within the framework of which several election campaigns took place, has ended. Quite expectedly, nominees from the ruling pro-Putin United Russia party won everywhere (all of them allegedly received 70-80% support). In addition, the posts of governors (heads of subjects of the federation) in the Oryol region and in the Republic of Khakassia were received by representatives of the Communist Party of the Russian Federation (which for the last 32 years has been playing the role of pocket / court opposition and fully supports the Kremlin's policy). United Russia also won a complete victory in the "new regions of Russia", that is, in the Crimea and the four occupied regions of Ukraine. Moreover, the Central Election Commission (CEC) of the Russian Federation insisted that the expression of will took place even in a number of those settlements (for example, Kherson and Lyman), which, in fact, have long been controlled by the armed forces of Ukraine.

In general, elections in an autocratic state have long turned into a farce and, in fact, voting without a real choice. However, the scale of falsifications in the Russian Federation this year was so grandiose that it should prompt the world community to doubt the legitimacy of the government and the entire regime of V. Putin! Of course, the main tool of the CEC for "drawing" the necessary figures was electronic voting - completely opaque, unaccountable to anyone and not controlled by anyone.

Interestingly, in some Russian regions, at the moment when technical access to electronic voting was opened, at the same time information appeared on the site that tens of thousands of "voters" were already voting.

Inside Russia, everyone is well aware that on this single voting day, a rehearsal for the presidential election, which is to be held in March 2024, took place. According to confidential information from the Kremlin, the first deputy head of the presidential administration, Sergei Kiriyenko, set the task of ensuring that the turnout in the elections of the guarantor of the constitution was 70%, and the result was at least 80%. At the same time, the Administration of the President of the Russian Federation does not get tired of coming up with more and more new methods in order to ensure the achievement of these results. Thus, the deputy chairman of the Central Election Commission of the Russian Federation, Nikolai Bulaev, announced some "point changes" in the electoral legislation until the spring of 2024, arguing that "time is running out and everything needs to be updated." Such devastating news is puzzling even among outside observers from the democratic world, because it is already quite clear to everyone that the CEC and V. Putin (or his protégé) will receive as many votes as they need!

Of course, a certain unfavorable event for the Kremlin's popularity should be the general mobilization in the Russian Federation, predicted by many military analysts. On the one hand, the human potentials of Russia and Ukraine are incommensurable. Kiev can rely on about 30 million people (since 8 million people have left for the West, 2.5 million people have been deported to the Russian Federation, and several million more are under occupation), while Moscow has 143 million (even if independent demographers insist on figures of 95-115 million). On the other hand, according to military analysts, the Kremlin ideally needs to bring about 100,000 new troops to the front every month. And even with huge human resources at hand, we are talking about hard organizational work for any government - to call on these next 100 thousand people, equip, arm, discipline, train and, ultimately, transport to the Ukrainian front. Part of the discontent due to new waves of mobilization during the March 2024 elections will be extinguished by generous state payments for the military, the wounded and family members of the victims. Well, аnd the rest is compensated by joint exercises with electronic voting and convenient "point changes" in the electoral law.

There are 2.6 times more beggars in Russia than official statistics show, as calculated by the Higher School of Economics Research Institute.

Why Does Popular Media Falsify History?

The falsification of history has done more to impede human development than any one thing known to mankind. Jean-Jacques Rousseau The Three Musketeers is one of my favourite books. It set the model for all great adventure stories, introducing the idea of the young hero teamed with older mentors, a long and dangerous journey, notable villains, and a glorious mission to complete. The story itself…

View On WordPress

Gary Gensler: Crypto Is not a Security

A video of Gary Gensler's speech at a Bloomberg conference sparked a wave of discussion on social media. In a 2018 entry the current SEC chairman firmly stated that “Bitcoin ($BTC), Ethereum ($ETH), Litecoin ($LTC), Bitcoin Cash ($BCH) are not securities.”

The video was released long before Gensler's appointment as chairman of the SEC. However, in his new role Gary argued that all crypto except bitcoin should be considered a security.

The crypto community accuses Gensler of hypocrisy recalling his previous statements and differing views on cryptocurrency. Critics point to contradictions in his position and believe that his new beliefs will have negative consequences for the development and regulation of the cryptocurrency market.

Perhaps Gensler has become an example of how the views of even experienced experts evolve when they get power. However, his past statements continue to raise doubts and serve as an occasion for heated discussions in the crypto community.

#GaryGensler #lie #cryptocurrency #double standards #falsification #regulation #cryptolaws #financial industry #cryptoindustry #truth #information_transparency